Hans Niemann (19) has sued Magnus Carlsen (31) for almost one billion Norwegian kroner for defamation. But can Niemann actually prove that Carlsen knew that what he said was not true?
Updated today 10:57
It has been the topic of several lawyers interested in chess after Niemann filed a lawsuit against Magnus Carlsen – and four other parties, including the company Play Magnus – for 100 million dollars each.
Niemann considers himself defamed by the five parties. In this case, we will go deeper into how Niemann in the complaint believes that Carlsen has committed an injustice, focusing on two central points:
- Is Hans Niemann to be considered a public figure (“public figure” in English), which means that the threshold for defamation is much higher?
- What does it mean that Carlsen has not directly said that Niemann cheated on him over the board?
Carlsen has not commented directly on the lawsuit, other than that he will not let it be an excuse in the ongoing Fischer Chess World Cup in Iceland. The company Play Magnus, where Carlsen is the second largest owner through Magnusschess, wrote in a statement on Tuesday that they are surprised by the lawsuit and believe it has no basis.
VG has not succeeded in getting a comment from Henrik Carlsen, father and manager of Magnus, in this case.
Did Carlsen speak out of “bad will”?
The question of whether Niemann is to be considered a public figure will be central to the assessment of the lawsuits he has filed.
– There is a much higher threshold for what constitutes defamation against public figures than it is against non-public figures, as this must involve malicious intent (“actual malice” in English), explains Akiva Cohen, lawyer at Manhattan six-lap KUSK Law and interested in chess.
He cites American case law that a public figure in this case is a person who is well known within the relevant environment, and highlights a case where a surfer unknown to the general public was nevertheless assessed as a public figure due to his standing in the environment.
Cohen uses it to argue that Niemann thereby fulfills the criterion of being a public figure, as he was well known in the chess community even before he became world famous after the chess scandal.
Furthermore, this means that Niemann must prove that Carlsen’s statements were said with ill will, i.e. that he knew that what he said was not true.
– It is one of the most difficult things to prove in American law, since it is about the subjective opinion of the accused, explains Cohen.
– It is not in American law to prove that what is claimed is not true, you must also prove that the person said it to damage your reputation, adds Anine Kierulf from the Department of Public Law at the University of Oslo, with freedom of expression as a special field among other things .
So: It is not relevant to this lawsuit if what Carlsen has said or implied is not true. The relevant thing is whether Carlsen knew that what he said or implied was not true.
– The lawsuit lacks concrete evidence that Carlsen knew that what he said was untrue, Cohen believes.
Carlsen’s actions: Is it worth implying?
Carlsen has taken three specific actions in the case against Hans Niemann:
Common to these: He does not say directly that Niemann has cheated on him over the board, but “the whole world” has interpreted that this is what he is implying. Could these suggestions be defamatory?
– You cannot get away with “just” insinuating. He does not say outright that Niemann cheated, just that he was unfocused and swept the Norwegian off the field. It may be that you are in a better position in a matter because you have not said it outright, but it is not certain that you will escape when everyone interprets it in the same way, says NRK’s chess expert and lawyer Torstein Bae.
– The real answer is no, as long as the implications are clear. You can defame someone without saying it directly, but somehow everyone understands it. In this case, there is no discussion about what he is implying, says Cohen.
I think the lawsuit will be dismissed
Cohen puts in a longer one https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1583451653692223491 out about why he believes the lawsuit in itself is legitimate for several reasons, but does not think the lawsuit against Carlsen will get as far as the court.
– The claim against Carlsen will probably be rejected on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to prove that Carlsen made the statement with ill will. Nothing in this lawsuit provides grounds for claiming that Carlsen did not actually believe that Niemann was cheating, says Cohen.
He points out another detail about the lawsuit: It is filed in the state of Missouri, while Niemann himself is from Connecticut. This is where the term SLAPP lawsuit comes in.
According to the Reporters Committee in the United States, Missouri’s anti-SLAPP legislation applies only when government agencies are involved, while private lawsuits are not affected. Connecticut, for its part, has strong anti-SLAPP legislation.
– The answer is probably that they have weak anti-SLAPP legislation, Cohen answers his own question about why the case has been filed in Missouri.
